updated 05:20 pm EDT, Thu August 14, 2008

RIAA ruling sets precedent

The newest development surrounding the long-lasting case of one Tanya Andersen and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), sees the single mother turning the tables on the RIAA, countersuing, and winning. Fearing the worst, the RIAA offered Andersen a $30,000 settlement, which she refused, then upped it $60,000 to the same effect before being ordered to pay nearly $108,000 by a judge and setting a precedent.

Andersen and her laywers, Lory Lybeck and Ben Justus, have opened the door in their efforts for more countersuits against the RIAA, which has been accused of bullying alleged illegal downloaders of copyrighted content into paying settlements to get rid of the lawsuits the RIAA slapped on them. Andersen's successful countersuit for the RIAA's frivolous lawsuit has earned her a court-ordered payment of $107,951.03, including $117.03 of interest, in attorneys' fees.

The RIAA represents music labels Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG.

The next step for Andersen is to join a class-action suit against the RIAA that accuses the conglomerate of violating federal anti-racketeering laws by pressuring the accused into settlements rather than face costly jury trials to defend themselves.

Finally, this MAFIAA protection racket gets the trouncing it deserves. Here's looking forward to the end of this abuse of the justice system. The courts are not there to help prop up your obsolete business model.

... succeeds in proving what was patently obvious and totally ignored by elected representatives across the nation. It shouldn't have taken a determined individual to assert the fundamental immorality of what the RIAA were up to. This is a triumph for Andersen and a disgrace for every senator, congressperson and elected official in the U.S. that has allowed those who they claim to represent to be bullied and intimidated by a scum-bag cartel. This isn't just civil injustice, this is criminal and should be treated as such!

Anyone who has read the least amount of info on this case knows that it was breaking legal ground to begin with. If you know what "precedent" means in reference to legal proceedings, then you'll be just as annoyed as i am by the stating-the-obvious nature. Still, this body content is good news.

Now if only we could get a step closer to individual property rights trumping half-baked environmental laws, then I'd say we're seeing a sea change in our legal system back to sanity.

Tanya Andersen!!! The RIAA is nothing more than a bunch of thugs in suits. They (RIAA/MPAA) claim to be recovering loss income for artists, but yet to give any money to the artists that they have won in past lawsuits.

Hopefully more people that have been bullied by the RIAA will follow Tanya's footsteps and put these modern day MAFIA type thugs in their place.

I'm a bit perplexed by those calling for the death/demise of the record business. That would ultimately mean no CDs in shops and, actually, no shops selling music. While you might think that may mean bands distributing their own music online it will also mean a complete disassembly of any centralised distribution and marketing channels.

This is the equivalent to Ford or Kellogg's having their own factory outlets that you need to buy from rather than your local car dealer/supermarket.

Ultimately there would be a fragmentation of the market, with no big companies willing to invest in bands to fund recording and distribution.

For film it would essentially mean the end of any investment that would fund big-budget productions.

You think that the slack would be taken up by bands performing. But that method is only viable after huge record sales. Your choice of live music could well be reduced to whatever the local musicians provide.

While I'm not a big fan of the music business as a whole, I do see the value it adds to choice. Be careful for what you wish for.